Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
23812638
label
Congressional - Voting Rights Act (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
23812638
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Congressional - Voting Rights Act (2)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Legislation
Suffrage
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
23812638
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-07-01
month
7
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-01-01
month
1
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b2e4031cd16d48c4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 8, folder "Congressional - Voting Rights Act
(2)" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 8 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Dick Parsons' office called to invite you to the signing
ceremony for the Voting Rights Act extension at 12:00 noon
Wednesday, August 6 in the Rose Garden. In case of rain
it will be held in the Cabinet Room. No confirmation is
necessary.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
5/22
Ken
See
Mr. Buchen has not seen
shirley
FORD i LIBRARY 24 39
Eva - -
Phil should see this promptly.
aside from the substance of
Potting suggestion, I am coverned
with (1) communications with operational
personnel of Justice by the Dimectic (wa)
Conveil rather than this office as
directed by the Prident; and
(2) the apparent bypass of the
FIRE
1998
den
eed
nedeed
S
A6.
Ken. valaine-
I
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Rod:
Here is memo
you said you would
review and
discuss with Ken
whose hand written
note to Eva 15 attached
P.
/ R. FORD LIBRAB
19 MAY 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR
Mr. James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
The White House
Subject: Voting Rights Act
In the week of June 2, 1975 the House begins,
under an open rule (with three hours of debate) its
consideration of H.R. 6219 which the House Judiciary
Committee reported out on May 8, 1975. The Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights has
scheduled mark-up for June 2, 1975. While the Act
is still in a state of flux, certain issues have
emerged, providing the following options.
I. Time Span of Extension.
The President proposed a five year extension of
both the special provisions 1/ of the Act and the national
ban on the use of tests or devices as a prerequisite to
registration and voting. H.R. 6219 provides for a ten
year extension of the special provisions and converts the
nationwide ban on tests or devices into a permanent ban.
While we should continue to endorse a five year extension,
I believe it would be appropriate to make clear that we
1/ As you recall, these consist of
(1) Attorney General power to dispatch examiners
to register voters; (2) same with regard to observers to
watch election day activities; and (3) the requirement
that all covered states and counties submit new election
laws to the Attorney General or the federal district
court in D.C. for approval.
cc: Phil Buchen
Jack Calkins
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
regard the difference between a five year extension and a
ten year extension to be one of degree and that we would
not quarrel with a legislative judgment to go with a ten
year extension. However we should point out that by mak-
ing permanent the national ban on tests or devices Congress
is taking a course which presents more risks in terms of
constitutionality; and that it would make more sense to tie
the extension of the special coverage with the nationwide
ban on literacy tests, so that both are extended for the
same time period. Even the Civil Rights Commission, which
supports a ten year extension of the special coverage, has
asked for only a ten year extension of the ban on tests or
devices.
II. Expansion of the Act.
The main issue which has emerged is whether the Act
should be expanded to provide further protections for
Mexican-Americans and American Indians (and for other
national origin minorities such as Puerto Ricans and Asian
Americans). Title II of H.R. 6219 would expand the special
provisions of the Act to cover jurisdictions which (1) con-
ducted English-only elections in 1972; (2) had five percent
or more voting age population comprised on the above minority
groups; and (3) had less than 50% voter participation in the
1972 Presidential election. Such a provision would cover
the states of Texas and Alaska and about 40 counties in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and
Oklahoma.
A related provision, Title III of H.R. 6219, would
ban English-only elections in jurisdictions in which 5%
or more of the voting age population belongs to one of the
above minority groups. (This provision does not trigger
the special provisions of the Act.) A ban on English-only
elections would merely codify existing case law, and we have
therefore taken the position that it would be unobjection-
able. We have said that the matter of expanding the special
provisions of the Act to Spanish-speaking and other national
origin minorities depends uniquely upon Congressional exami-
nation of its need, and have explicitly declined to take an
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
- 3 -
Administration position on the need for or appropriateness
of such legislation. In response to questioning, we have
advised the Congress that in our view such a provision
would be constitutional.
III. Other Provisions.
Three other related proposals have been made either
informally or formally. First, H.R. 6219 would amend Sec-
tion 3 of the Voting Rights Act to provide that a finding
of a violation of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment in
a private voting suit could trigger application of the
special provisions of the Act (at present such a finding
under the Fifteenth Amendment in a suit brought by the
Attorney General can trigger the special provisions).
Second, Congressman Wiggins has proposed to com-
pletely revamp the special coverage of the Act by providing
that after each federal election all states or political
subdivisions with under 50% voter participation would be
brought under the special provisions of the Act.
Finally, staff members of the Senate Constitutional
Rights Subcommittee have suggested that in the absence of
expansion of the special provisions, Congress direct the
Attorney General to investigate those jurisdictions which
would have been specifically covered under the expansion
provision of H.R. 6219, and to bring suits where appro-
priate. Under this approach, if we won such a suit
the special provisions would then be triggered.
Should he respond to inquiries from the leader-
ship in both Houses on this matter, may I recommend
that the President consider the following positions:
1. Extension of 1970 Act
As the President has already indicated,
FORD is LIBRARY
extension of existing provisions is
paramount, and no amendments should
be permitted to jeopardize seriously
this objective.
- 4 -
2. Time span of extension
Prefer five year extension, but indicate
that eight or ten year extension is not
critical enough to invoke a veto.
3. Time span of national ban on test
or devices
Indicate same here, but point out the
importance of trying to avoid legislating
a permanent ban (as opposed to five or
ten year ban) given that a permanent
ban raises more risk as to its consti-
tutionality.
4. Expansion of the special provisions to
non-English speaking minorities
Continue to maintain neutrality on the
matter, pointing to the unique importance
of congressional debate and judgment on
the issue. The President may wish to
indicate, if he believes it appropriate,
that if expansion passes both Houses, it
would not be the basis for a veto.
5. Authority to bring private voting law suits
to trigger special provisions; congressional
direction to Attorney General to investigate
national origin minority voting rights
violations
These two suggestions, coupled with two
others discussed here, constitute a
comfortable position in the event that
the Congress balks at expansion of the
special provisions on its own motion.
From a separation of powers viewpoint,
FORD
LIBRARY
- 5 -
I question the wisdom of the President
openly inviting the Congress to direct
the Executive Branch to undertake
investigations. On the other hand,
the result is not unwieldy, and it
invokes federal attention on a case-
by-case basis without triggering
automatic and massive federal presence.
The President could, if he wishes, also state
publicly that he is directing the Justice Department
to undertake this same action independent of
congressional direction to do so. (The Justice
Department presently has authority to investigate
and sue jurisdictions not covered by the special
provisions of the Act and, if successful, thereby
trigger application of the special provisions.
This authority, known as "Section 3," has almost
never been used to date.) Such a program, coupled
with endorsement of the ban on the English-only
elections in heavily non-English speaking voter
jurisdictions, would be a substantial step forward
on behalf of the Spanish-speaking community, and
a fairly effective compromise between those favoring
full expansion and those favoring no action whatsoever.
IV. Wiggins proposal.
Since we have just received it, we have not
yet had an opportunity to determine what its nationwide
impact would be. We are undertaking that analysis on
an expedited basis. It is worth noting here that it
appears to present some problems in terms of practicalities
(it may greatly increase the Justice Department's
present workload) and in terms of constitutionality
(because coverage is not dependent upon the existence
of any discriminatory practice).
GERALD FORD
- 6 -
As a political matter, the proposal appears to
be attractive to the South because it is likely to
be national in its impact rather than regional, as
the present Act is. Conversely, because it so
radically alters the present Act, it is likely to
be seen on the Hill as a threat to successful
extension of the present Act, and therefore as a
repeat of the alleged "southern strategy" attempt
to defeat the Act in 1970.
With regard to the question of the regionalism
of extending the present Act, the sense I get from
discussion with southern legislators andpolitical
figures, including Clarke Reed, is that from the
viewpoint of actual federal impact, extension of
the Act is not as controversial or undesirable
now
as it was five or ten years ago, / but
that from the viewpoint of singling out the South
for disparate treatment, extension is seen as
politically "unfair" in a general sense of the
word. There are two possible mitigating factors &
which the President could consider in this regard:
(1) the President could privately and publicly
endorse the provision allowing private parties
to invoke Voting Rights Act coverage if they are
successful in showing Fifteenth Amendment violations
wherever they exist, including the North; and (2)
the President could, as indicated above, direct
the Attorney General to use previously dormant
Section 3 authority to investigate for discrimination
in the North, just as the Act presently does so
automatically in the South. Or if Congress directs
/
On the contrary, because the Voting Rights Act
has led to the replacement of multi-member at-large
districts with single-member districts, minority
parties, including the Republican party, see the Act
as a definite boost to possible electorial gains.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
- 7 -
Executive Branch investigations on behalf of
Spanish-speaking minorities not presently covered
by the special provisions, the President could
use that occasion to go beyond such a directive
and direct similar investigations nationwide.
In talking to Clarke Reed about this today,
he was pleased with the prospect of Presidential
direction of this kind, and strongly urged that
a position of this kind be made public at some
point. I also tried this position on Clarence
Mitchell to see if he felt that civil rights
leaders and others favoring extension would regard
a direction by the President of this kind to be a
repeat of a 1970 southern strategy move. He did
not think so, and had no problem with it. Misinter-
pretation of this kind would be totally avoided; of
course, if the President's public direction to
investigate northern discrimination came at the
time of his signing a new extension bill, rather
then before its passage.
With regard to expansion of special provisions to
the Spanish-speaking, I talked to Senator Tower on
Friday and he has not yet made up his mind as to
what position he will take. From our discussion,
I would guess that he will be neutral or will vote
against expansion, but given his concern for Spanish-
speaking voters in his state, even if he votes against
expansion he appears likely not to be wholly unsympathetic
to such a provision.
I have not yet spoken with John Rhodes, but
will do so as promptly as possible, pursuant to our
earlier conversation.
Let me know what of the foregoing is unclear, or
how I can be of further help.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
J. Stanley Pottinger
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 18, 1975
Dear Hugh:
As I said to you during our discussion yesterday,
it is most important that Congress extend the
temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act before
the August recess.
These provisions expire August 6, 1975, and they
must not be allowed to lapse.
My first priority is to extend the Voting Rights
Act. With time so short, it may be best as a
practical matter to extend the Voting Rights Act
as it is for five more years; or, as an alternative,
the Senate might accept the House bill (H.R. 6219),
which includes the important step of extending the
provisions of the Act to Spanish-speaking citizens
and others. To make certain that the Voting Rights
Act is continued, I can support either approach.
However, the issue of broadening the Act further
has arisen; and it is my view that it would now
be appropriate to expand the protection of the
Act to all citizens of the United States.
I strongly believe that the right to vote is the
foundation of freedom, and that this right must
be protected.
That is why, when this issue was first being con-
sidered in 1965, I co-sponsored with Representative
William McCulloch of Ohio a voting rights bill
FORD in LIBRARY
which would have effectively guaranteed voting
rights to eligible citizens throughout the whole
country.
2
After it became clear at that time that the McCulloch-
Ford bill would not pass, I voted for the most practical
alternative, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1970,
I supported extending the Act.
Last January, when this issue first came before me
as President, I proposed that Congress again extend
for five years the temporary provisions of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
The House of Representatives, in H.R. 6219, has
broadened this important law in this way: (1) The
House bill would extend the temporary provisions of
the Act for ten years, instead of five; and (2) the
House bill would extend the temporary provisions of
the Act so as to include discrimination against
language minorities, thereby extending application
of the Act from the present seven States to eight
additional States, in whole or in part.
In light of the House extension of the Voting Rights
Act for ten years and to eight more States, I believe
this is the appropriate time and opportunity to extend
the Voting Rights Act nationwide.
This is one nation, and this is a case where what is
right for fifteen States is right for fifty States.
Numerous civil rights leaders have pointed out that
substantial numbers of Black citizens have been denied
the right to vote in many of our large cities in areas
other than the seven Southern states where the present
temporary provisions apply. Discrimination in voting
in any part of this nation is equally undesirable.
As I said in 1965, when I introduced legislation on
this subject, a responsible, comprehensive voting
rights bill should "correct voting discrimination
wherever it occurs throughout the length and breadth
of this great land.' "
I urge the Senate to move promptly--first, to assure
that the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights
Act do not lapse. As amendments are taken up, I
urge you to make the Voting Rights Act applicable
FORD
nationwide. Should the Senate extend the Act to
American voters in all 50 states, i am confident
the House of Representatives would concur.
GERALD
LIBRARY
3
I shall be grateful if you will convey to the members
of the Senate my views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
that R. Fl
The Honorable Hugh Scott
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
the
voting
the learth and breadth
3
assure
GERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Release that was passed
out which you will
probably want to see.
R.
FORD
LIBRARY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 23, 1975
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
July 18, 1975
Dear Hugh:
As I said to you during our discussion yesterday,
it is most important that Congress extend the
temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act before
the August recess.
These provisions expire August 6, 1975, and they
must not be allowed to lapse.
My first priority is to extend the Voting Rights
Act. With time so short, it may be best as a
practical matter to extend the Voting Rights Act
as it is for five more years; or, as an alternative,
the Senate might accept the House bill (H.R. 6219),
which includes the important step of extending the
provisions of the Act to Spanish-speaking citizens
and others. To make certain that the Voting Rights
Act is continued, I can support either approach.
However, the issue of broadening the Act further
has arisen; and it is my view that it would now
be appropriate to expand the protection of the
Act to all citizens of the United States.
I strongly believe that the right to vote is the
foundation of freedom, and that this right must
be protected.
That is why, when this issue was first being con-
sidered in 1965, I co-sponsored with Representative
William McCulloch of Ohio a voting rights bill
which would have effectively guaranteed voting
FORD
rights to eligible citizens throughout the whole
country.
BERALD
LIBRARY
(MORE)
2
After it became clear at that time that the McCulloch-
Ford bill would not pass, I voted for the most practical
alternative, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1970,
I supported extending the Act.
Last January, when this issue first came before me
as President, I proposed that Congress again extend
for five years the temporary provisions of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
The House of Representatives, in H.R. 6219, has
broadened this important law in this way: (1) The
House bill would extend the temporary provisions of
the Act for ten years, instead of five; and (2) the
House bill would extend the temporary provisions of
the Act so as to include discrimination against
language minorities, thereby extending application
of the Act from the present seven States to eight
additional States, in whole or in part.
In light of the House extension of the Voting Rights
Act for ten years and to eight more States, I believe
this is the appropriate time and opportunity to extend
the Voting Rights Act nationwide.
This is one nation, and this is a case where what is
right for fifteen States is right for fifty States.
Numerous civil rights leaders have pointed out that
substantial numbers of Black citizens have been denied
the right to vote in many of our large cities in areas
other than the seven Southern states where the present
temporary provisions apply. Discrimination in voting
in any part of this nation is equally undesirable.
As I said in 1965, when I introduced legislation on
this subject, a responsible, comprehensive voting
rights bill should "correct voting discrimination
wherever it occurs throughout the length and breadth
of this great land."
I urge the Senate to move promptly--first, to assure
that the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights
Act do not lapse. As amendments are taken up, I
urge you to make the Voting Rights Act applicable
nationwide. Should the Senate extend the Act to
American voters in all 50 states, I am confident
FÜRD is GERALD LIBRARY
the House of Representatives would concur.
(MORE)
3
I shall be grateful if you will convey to the members of the Senate my
views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
GERALD R. FORD
#
#
#
LIBRARY GERALD P. FORD
Voting Rights
7/23/75
4:05 p.m.
Mr. Parsons:
Mary said John Calhoun called you --
has a report of conversations with the
NAACP and Urban League on voting
rights -- thought you might want to call
him.
I.O. 298
1989 i LIBRARY
voting
Thursday 7/24/75
1:45 Ken Lazarus called to say they're up on the Hill and have
been since this morning and will continue to hand around.
He said there will not be any more amendments. They're
not pushing any. It will go on its wayas it is. There may
be one -- a parochial question in Florida, but not any political
thing. Everything is cool on the western front!
But they will stay up there and keep an eye on things.
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD